Friday Random Ten: The Hello California Marriage Tourism Edition
So, the California Supreme Court yesterday struck down the ban on same-sex marriage. To those of you who may be tempted at this point to start lamenting the actions of our “black robed masters,” there are a few things to bear in mind:
- The California legislature has twice passed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage. Both times, the Governator vetoed the legislation, saying that the Courts needed to be heard on this issue.
- Now that the Supreme Court has, in fact, been heard, the Governator has announced that he’s supporting their decision, and opposing efforts to amend the California Constitution to overturn it.
- California has had provision for registered domestic partnerships since 1999. In 2003, a law was passed (that went into effect in 2005) changing the terms of those domestic partnerships to make them as marriage-like as possible.
- California Supreme Court justices are appointed by the Governor, but thereafter face reelection by the voters. Every one of the current Supreme Court Justices has been confirmed by election. Supreme Court Justices have been voted out of office in the three decades I’ve been living in this state.
- The California Constitution can be amended by voter initiative (a much easier process than amending the US Constitution, and one that’s happened repeatedly in the time I’ve lived here). An initiative has already been submitted for the November 2008 election that would amend the California Constitution to rule out same-sex marriage; that initiative is currently pending signature verification to determine whether it qualifies. (Flip side: by the time we vote on the measure, numerous same-sex couples will already have married in this state. If the measure passes, are they divorced?)
So, like it or not (I say because I know I’ll have readers adamantly on both sides), at this point we have all three branches of government in California on board with same-sex marriage (and all three of those brances were elected). San Francisco, open your golden gate – to would-be same-sex newlyweds from all over the country.
On a more personal note, I finished the second draft of my screenplay, which is finally at least nominally within the length limits for screenplays (the first draft was dozens of pages too long), though some web sites say screenplays these days should be even shorter to be marketable.
Movies:
It’s the Rage: The latest installment in my attempt to see all of Andre Braugher’s movies, this one had a lower Netflix rating than the others I’ve seen, both for how other Netflix users rated it and for how well Netflix thought I would like it (three stars in both cases). I shuffled it to the top anyway, because I couldn’t resist the Andre Braugher as two-timing lawyer part of the synopsis; it was a different role than I’d seen him in before. And, sure enough, it was fun to watch Andre two-time. Otherwise, though, I’d have to say the Netflix rating was right; while it wasn’t a bad movie, it wasn’t a great one either. The movie is about guns, and in many ways portrays that counter to the NRA slogan, “Guns don’t kill people, but they make it real easy.” It starts with headlines about people killed by guns flashing by during the opening credits. Soon a whole bunch of gun-toting characters are introduced, and you know that all the guns introduced in Act One will indeed go off by Act Three. Problem is, two of the gun-toting people are actually mentally ill, and another is insanely jealous, so the movie seems to be simultaneously saying guns are bad and dangerous, and people who carry guns are really not right in their heads. If you look at it as a message movie, the second message kind of undercuts the first; won’t we be OK if we just leave the guns in the hands of the sane people? Well, no; I will spoiler it enough to note that at least one of the characters who gets in trouble by carrying a gun is quite sane, and at least one death will be accidental. There’s also some interesting exploration of the characters’ various motives (power, speed, sex) for toting those guns. One other flaw: the computer nerd came off, to me, as more surreal than believable. I guess he was supposed to be a sort of young, high tech version of Howard Hughes, but for me missed the mark. I had an easier time believing the other characters.
23: Jim Carrey is pursued and haunted by the number 23. A comedy? No, this one’s a dead serious thriller, a study in paranoia as the Jim Carrey character’s wife watches her husband’s sanity slip away.
Only Human (Spanish movie): A Jewish woman brings her Palestinian fiance to meet her family. There’s the slutty sister, the brother who’s turned hyperreligious, the blind grandfather who served in the Israeli army, and who’s under the mistaken impression that the Palestinian fiance is in the IDF. Is the father having an affair? Can Rafi, the Palestinian, get in the family’s good graces after the dreadful mistake he makes? Will the gun introduced in Act One go off in Act Three? Since it’s a comedy, I don’t spoiler it too much by saying that all’s well that ends well.
And here are the ten random iTunes selections.
- “Ombra Mai Fu” from Handel’s Largo
- “Ave verum corpus” by Dad
- “Ave Maria” by Dad
- “Light of the World” from Godspell
- “There Is One Lord” from the Taize album Wait for the Lord
- “La Donna Est Mobile” from Rigoletto
- “Till There Was You”
- “The Red Corvette” by John McCutcheon
- “Send In the Clowns” from A Little Night Music
- “Greensleeves”
Bonus Track: Holly Near singing “We Are a Gentle, Angry People.” (There’s another slice of California gay and lesbian history; the song was written after Harvey Milk and George Moscone were assassinated. Evidently, it’s now a Unitarian hymn.)
May 16th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Hi Lynn,
It’s not so simple. Remember it ain’t over till the People sing, and sing again. The California legislature did attempt to illegally overturn Proposition 22 and the governor did preempt a clash over the issue by vetoing it. The California politicians and now the court seem to be forever trying to subvert the will of the people. The people’s Prop. 22 aria hit a powerful high C with a 61% majority vote. The politicians went beserk in trying to circumvent this democratic expression. It started with Mayor Newsom’s rebellion in San Francisco in complete defiance of all law and order. The people may have an opportunity to sing again in November in this grand California soap opera.
The court’s exercise in judicial tyranny should help galvanize the marriage defenders. The facts of what they have done will be exposed to the general public that will do more than merely count court votes but actually examine the absurdity of their decision. I’m hoping that you will look into this in some detail so that you too will seriously oppose this travesty of justice. You can start with my posting at the Opine Editorials (http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com), “Judicial Tyranny Runs Amok in California.”
Here is the rational understanding of two of the dissenting judges:
“. . . a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative considerations. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.”
And there is much more.
Lots of Love.
May 17th, 2008 at 7:40 am
[...] Lynn points out that all three branches of government are in agreement on this. Take that, pseudo-originalist [...]
May 18th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Or maybe its mobocracy and majoritarian tyranny among the populace run amok?
May 18th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Hmm. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0518edit2may18,0,766308 7.story
May 20th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Excellent points.
The most significant issue, in my view, is not that a 4-3 court decision brought about gay marriage in CA, but it is instead the reasoning used by that court. In particular, the majority’s arguments concerning the existence of a “fundamental right” to marry, its insistence on the “strict scrutiny” test, and its definition of homosexuals as a “suspect classification” akin to race, are where the real action is.
May 20th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Lynn, glad to stumble upon your blog again. It’s been a long time since we used to exchange ideas in the comments section on Family Scholars. Good luck with the screenplay!
May 21st, 2008 at 7:04 am
Good to see you again, Peter. And welcome to any readers coming here from Marriage Debate! Good point, Darel, about the real action being in the legal reasoning used.
While I’m commenting, I’d also like to point out this piece by Scott Lemieux, several years ago, on the larger issue of judicial review, where he argues that the courts often wind up deciding questions, not so much because they’re seizing the issue from the legislatures, as because legislatures have effectively booted certain issues to the courts to preserve their own political coalitions. I think the observation is apt.